Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:38:56 12/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2003 at 13:12:46, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 12, 2003 at 10:35:00, Anthony Cozzie wrote: > >>On December 11, 2003 at 13:20:29, Sandro Necchi wrote: >> >>>Robert, >>> >>>I think it is not the case to continuo. I will stay on my ideas as you are going >>>to stay on yours. >>> >>>I am interested on winning games on the board and not in the forum. >>> >>>I am sorry, but I do trust more Darse than you, as well as the TD in Graz. >>> >>>I only hope that in future the programmers will agree to stop the games when the >>>score is not lower than -10 to avoid "ridiculus". >>> >>>By being a chess player I find to continuo playing "extremely lost games" >>>offensive and not useful at all to show how strong the chess programs have >>>become. >>> >>>I am saying this here now to avoid someone would link this to Shredder games. >>> >>>I am a true chess and computer chess lover and hate to see non senses like >>>playing extremely lost positions. >>> >>>How can a programmer be proud of not losing or winning a game extremely lost? >>> >>>Does it makes sense a statement like "well, this year my program did score very >>>well as we scored 5 out of 8 while last year I scored 0. The first game it went >>>down -12, but the opponent had a bug and we could win the game. The second one >>>the opponent had a mate in 12, but a bug made the program lose 3 pieces and we >>>won. The third game we won with 3 pieces less because the opponent program got a >>>bug that removed all the hashtables use and so on..." >>> >>>Wow there is a lot to be proud! >>> >>>I am clearly exagerrating, but it seems for some people this would be >>>acceptable... >>> >>>??????????????????????? >>>I will never understand this! >>> >>>Sandro > >Hi, >> >>As a human, I get annoyed when people continue when they are down a rook or >>more. I get _really_ annoyed when they beat me anyway :) And I can see your >>point, its something of an insult: the other player is saying that they can win >>even though they have a horribly lost position. >> >>However, computer-computer games are different IMHO. Computers don't have egos. >> They never get tired. Why not let it go all the way to checkmate? > >I was not referring to 2003 WCCC, but I was proposing something for the next >tournaments. > >My point is: > >1. Since the programs now are much stronger than 20 years ago, why not change >the rule about resigning and let them resing when they are down -10? I don't understand the request. A program has _always_ been able to resign on its own, at any point it chooses. The operator is more limited in what he can do. But if a program says "I resign" then the TD has always accepted that at any event I have played in. If I wanted to resign for my program (I have not had to do that since mine has self-resigned for years) I had to clear it with the TD. But not if the program made the choice. However, it seems you want to _force_ this to be the policy, and I don't agree with that, particularly with sudden-death time controls. >2. It is true that a bug may help the program which is lost, but which are the >chances today? Is it correct to say 1 every 1000? If this is true, why not >concentrate to improve their play on the first part of the game rather then >hoping to be extremely lucky in the endgame? > >Yes, it is true that they do not get tired, but the people watching these games >do and they would switch to another game as that is of no interest anymore when >the advantage is so high. >This is what I do and I do believe I am not the only one. >I guess we all want to have more people attracted by chess and chess programs, >so why not give them something they would prefer? > >This is only a proposal for the next tournaments, to make them more attractive >for the real chess players. > >Sandro > >>Do you >>think you deserve to win if your program can't play a simple mate in 8? >> >>anthony
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.